Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. N. K. Saini
This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 27.08.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi.
The only effective ground raised in this appeal reads as under:
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow the deduction u/s 10B of the I.T. Act in accordance of law.” 3. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that an identical issue having similar facts has already 2 Kiran Kapoor been adjudicated by the ITAT Delhi Bench “D”, New Delhi in assessee’s favour for the assessment year 2006-07 as reported at 150 ITD 237 (Del) which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as reported at 372 ITR 321 (Del) (copy of the aforesaid orders were furnished which are placed on record). The above contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was not rebutted by the ld. DR.
After considering the submissions of both the parties and material on record, it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee and against the department vide order dated 29.01.2015 in to 15/2015 in the case of CIT-VIII Vs Ms. Kiran Kapoor reported at 372 ITR 321 wherein it has been held as under: “Dismissing the appeal, that the work which ultimately resulted as the culmination of the assessee's efforts of compiling, editing, digital designing, etc. "is transmitted or exported from India to any place outside India by any means". It was, therefore, computer software that are produced or manufactured, to qualify for benefit under section 10B.”
So, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid assessee’s own case in the preceding year. I do not see any merit in this appeal of the department.
3 Kiran Kapoor 6. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 01/07/2016)